Skip to main content

About your Search

20110301
20110331
Search Results 0 to 23 of about 24 (some duplicates have been removed)
announcements about u.s. wars, about u.s. military interventions. some of them amounting to small wars, some amounting to very large wars. now that the united states has embarked on its latest new military intervention in libya, i would love to be able to show you the current president's oval office address on the subject, but there isn't one. president obama did make a public statement saturday afternoon that we had started that military intervention in libya, but did so from the confines of a convention center in brazil. eight years to the day that george w. bush stared unsteadily into the camera and announced the iraq invasion, president obama announced his own military intervention, but pointedly declined the opportunity to do it in a way that u.s. presidents usually do. president obama taking all sorts of criticism from the right over the past few days for not cancelling his trade visit to latin america as a result of this military action in libya. and the white house knew that criticism would come. their decision to go ahead with the trip anyway, to forego the chest thumping commander
there are people trying it. from tunisia to hosni mubarak, the great u.s. ally of three decades. to yemen, to worries about al qaeda and extremism in that area of the world. he is supposedly our ally against terrorism. even moammar gadhafi, most americans if they think of him at all think of him as a ridiculous cartoon villain. even he has recently been considered an ostensible american ally. whose planes the american military shot down in 1986. a man whose house ronald reagan shot a missile. even gadhafi was made into a supposed u.s. ally by the george call a diplomatic victory after the fiasco that was the fake weapons of mass destruction in iraq. it is hard enough to figure out how americans can best help out popular uprisings of people that want to determine their own future instead of living under a despot. that is hard enough. how do you figure it out when the despot in question is our despot. when he has enjoyed american support, american seal of approval? that's why there was this collective national stomach turning when we saw images of made in the usa tear gas cannisters thrown
. look. it appears to be number four that drove the u.s. government to dramatically break with the japanese government today, to start giving its own american assessment of what is going on at this reactor and these reactors instead of repeating what the japanese were saying. it is number four, or at least it appears to be the number four reactor that led the u.s. government to say that u.s. citizens should evacuate from an area around the reactor that is larger than what the japanese government has suggested. here is what's going on at reactor four. reactor four reportedly contains 130 tons of spent fuel. there's a reactor there. that was off when the quake happened. but it is still there. there's the reactor there, that was off. that's presumably cool shut down. then the spent fuel pool. 130 tons of spent fuel in that pool. for reference, that's about 28% less fuel than what blew up at chernobyl. the u.s. nuclear regulatory commission reportedly has its own experts on site at daiichi. even though japan is not saying this, american nuclear authorities, our nuclear regulat
, again replacing the u.s. a senior u.s. official telling reporters that more{ arab nations are expected to contribute to the no-fly zone in the next several days. the obama administration is doing everything it can to keep the american role here as low profile as possible. the consequences of that strategy at home look like this. at politico.com, sarkozy's war. sarkozy, he's french. everybody freak out. and a part of the american right that never met a military intervention they did not like is loudly upset at the lack of presidential chest thumping. they want him in a flight suit, fake landing a fighter jet, preferably with cinched up straps around the crotch. the weekly standard ran an รง editorial today which i do not think was sarcastic. they wrote president obama is taking us to war in another muslim country. good for him. not sarcastic, at least i don't think so. after noting concerns about perceptions the u.s. was in vading another muslim country, bill kristol at the weekly standard wrote rubbish. that's how they talk at the weekly standard. our invasions, he wrote, have been li
the opportunity to do that in a way that u.s. presidents usually do. president obama taking all sorts of criticism from the right for not cancelling his trade visit to latin america as a result of this military action in libya. the white house knew that criticism would come. their decision to go ahead with the trip and forego the chest-thumping commander in chief theater at the start of a military convention, that is a fascinating and blunt demonstration of how much this presidency is not like that of george w. bush. do you remember when george w. bush campaigned for president by saying he wanted america to have a humble foreign policy? candidates for president love to say stuff like that. >> i don't think it's a role of the united states to walk into a country and say we do it this way, so should you. >> the united states must be humble and proud of our values, but humble in figure out how to chart their course. >> candidates say stuff like that when they are running because americans like that idea. americans like to vote for the idea. we like that kind of talk and we expect it from candidates.
of american commitment to the war and how much the u.s. is willing to devote to that war in terms of money and time and equipment and man power and risk. in terms of america's lead military role in the war thus far, the obama administration has been saying from the start that the u.s. would hand that off in a matter of days, not weeks. 11 days ago in a meeting with congressional leaders, president obama reportedly assured members of congress that the handover would be, and i quote, in days, and not weeks. defense secretary bob gates echoed that time line on board a military plane a few days later to moscow. >> we expect in a matter of days to be able to turn over the primary responsibility to others. we will continue to support the coalition. we will be a member of the coalition, a military role in the coalition, but we will not have the preeminent role. >> in a matter of days, we will not have the preeminent role. that was over a week ago. fast forward to sunday night when nato supreme allied commander in europe posted this update on facebook, yes, seriously, a facebook update. he said, q
and afghanistan back in 2001? "t tesgo o oitwa i rorngonhto y no. first in afghanistan, the cia worked with u.s. military forces on the ground in afghanistan. in libya, the u.s. is still ruling out ground troops. so far in libya, the u.s. is not saying we are doing that. the u.s. is not saying we are arming the rebels, but as i understand it, this presidential finding if it has happened would be the kind of instrument that president obama would use to authorize something like arming the rebels. again, i am not totally clear on what the presidential finding would mean if there is one, and since we don't know for a fact there definitely was one, it is hard to say exactly what its terms are. that's one of the things we are going to try to figure out with michael isikoff from nbc in a moment. what we know about the legality of this, presidential findings have been around for decades, presidents using them for covert operations have to notify the top democrat and republican in the house and senate, as well as top democrat and republican on the intelligence committees in both the house and the senate
or airplanes. he stressed the u.s. is diplomatically supporting the no-fly zone, not the enforcement itself. no american troops on the ground, no american planes, no enforcement itself, that's what we know. what we don't know is a lot bigger. joining us now, eugene robinson, pulitzer prize winning columnist for "the washington post." thanks for being here. >> good evening, chris. >> what do you make of president obama's remarks on libya today? are we now at war? was that the communication? even coming away from it, i had a hard time answering that question for myself. >> when i heard the president's speech, i thought gee, we might be, and here is why. he said very clearly that as far as he's concerned and the united states is concerned, gadhafi has lost the legitimacy to lead. he forfeited the right to be president of libya, and he set these demands, gadhafi has to stop, he has to withdraw, these are not negotiable and there will be consequences. so that to me says we are going to use force to make gadhafi do what we want him to do. >> and of course, if he doesn't do what we want him to do,
covert u.s. government support for rebel leaders. >> the new york times reports small groups of operatives have been working in libya for several weeks. the unknown number of american officers according to times gathering intelligence for air strikes and making contact with rebels. now, does this mean that the cia is in libya as a pseudo military force to topple gadhafi the way the cia participated as a pseudo military force in toppling the taliban in afghanistan back in 2001? the times goes out of its way and is reporting to say no. first the afghanistan worked with military forces on the ground in afghanistan. in libya, the u.s. is still ruling out ground troops. second, in afghanistan, the cia provided weapons to the opposition forces that were there fighting the taliban. so far in libya, the u.s. is not saying we are doing that. the u.s. is not saying we are arming the rebels, but as i understand it, this presidential finding, if it has happened, would be the kind of instrument that president obama would use to authorize something like arming the rebels. again, i am not t
regulatory commission making the announcement that preceded the u.s. government saying that we think people should evacuate a region even larger than japan had suggested. it's a short statement that he makes here. i'm just going to play it one more time for emphasis. >> we believe that radiation levels are extremely high, which could possibly impact the ability to take corrective measures. >> which could possibly impact -- which could possibly impact the ability to take corrective measures. here's how "the new york times" explained why that is so important, why i think that sound bite was important enough to play twice. i think they said this exactly right, and it's really important. "if the american analysis is accurate and emergency crews at the plant have been unable to keep the spent fuel at that inoperative reactor properly cooled, radiation levels could make if difficult not only to fix the problem at reactor number 4 but to keep servicing any of the other problem reactors at the plant. in the worst case, experts say, workers could be forced to vacate the plant altogether, and the fue
hurdle to make it harder for students to vote. the u.s. supreme court has affirmed that if you are living somewhere to attend college there you can vote there. but that doesn't mean republicans have to make it easy. so no student i.d.s. in new hampshire republicans are trying the same deal. >> the kids coming out of the school and basically doing what i did when i was a kid, voting as a liberal. you know, that's what kids do. they don't have life experience and they just vote their feelings. >> stupid kids. that new hampshire republican legislator there has introduced legislation that would only let college students vote in their college towns if they or their parents had previously established permanent residency there. another new hampshire bill would end election day registration, which would disproportionately impact first-time voters and young voters, who, again, are more likely to vote democratic. over in texas they're dealing with a massive $27 billion budget deficit. in order to deal with that state's disastrous budget emergency, republican governor rick perry has introduced five
't. with one sold every 15 seconds, it's the #1 selling lipstain in the u.s. [ male announcer ] outlast lipstain. from easy, breezy, beautiful covergirl. your advertising mail campaign is paying off! business is good! it must be if you're doing all that overnight shipping. that must cost a fortune. it sure does. well, if it doesn't have to get there overnight, you can save a lot with priority mail flat rate envelopes. one flat rate to any state, just $4.95. that's cool and all... but it ain't my money. i seriously do not care... so, you don't care what anyone says, you want to save this company money! that's exactly what i was saying. hmmm... priority mail flat rate envelopes, just $4.95 only from the postal service. a simpler way to ship. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 are still talking about retirement tdd# 1-800-345-2550 like it's some kind of dream. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 it's either this magic number i'm supposed to reach, or... tdd# 1-800-345-2550 it's beach homes or it's starting a vineyard. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 come on ! tdd# 1-800-345-2550 just help me figure it out tdd# 1-800-345-2550 in a p
Search Results 0 to 23 of about 24 (some duplicates have been removed)